United States v. Shockley, No. 15-2229 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant conditionally plead guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced defendant to 180 months in prison under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1). Because defendant did not challenge any statements relating to the drug investigation, the allegedly false statements about the homicide investigation were not necessary to find probable cause to support issuing a search warrant. The court agreed with the district court that the unchallenged statements in the affidavit provided sufficient facts to support a warrant to search defendant’s home. Therefore, the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion to hold a Franks hearing and to suppress the evidence. The court concluded, in light of United States v. Johnson, that defendant's prior convictions under Missouri law can no longer qualify as predicate offenses under the ACCA's residual clause. In this case, the Missouri statute at issue includes conduct that falls under the ACCA's force clause; the statute also defines the offense to include fleeing from an officer; and, applying the modified categorical approach, the court cannot conclude that any of his prior convictions were for violent felonies under the force clause. The court vacated and remanded for resentencing. On remand, the court does not impose any limitations on the evidence the district court may consider.
Court Description: Gruender, Author, with Colloton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. The unchallenged statements in the affidavit submitted in support of the search warrant application established probable cause, and the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a Franks hearing; on the question of whether defendant qualified for sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act, the matter must be remanded for resentencing as the court could not conclude on this record that any of defendant's prior convictions were violent felonies under the force clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act; because the parties were proceeding in this case before the issuance of the decision in Johnson, the government and the district court relied on the residual clause to determine that defendant's prior offenses were violent felonies and the government had no reason to submit documents which could have established that the felonies did qualify under the force clause; as a result, on remand, the district court is not limited to the existing record in determining whether defendant qualified for sentencing as an armed career criminal, and the district court may hear any relevant evidence it could have heard at the first sentencing hearing; the court has not yet decided whether Johnson's void-for-vagueness standard applies to the sentencing guidelines and declines to resolve the issue or otherwise instruct the district court in calculating defendant's advisory guidelines range on remand.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.